You do not have to respect all beliefs, but do have to respect all people. No personal attacks, including ad hominem arguments. Argue the argument, not the person. Source any claims that you make. Sometimes not necessary (eg. claiming that Christians believe in Jesus), but for anything significant provide a citation before you post, make sure that whatever you're saying adds to discussion in a meaningful way. Always be mature, sensitive, and thoughtful.

Posting Regulations ("Pilate" Program):

Occasionally participants may want to narrow the answer pool to only a specific set of users. In these cases the user can tag the post [Christians] and only top level comments from Christians are allowed. All other top level replies will be removed. A person could specify [YEC] and ONLY YEC should reply as a top level comment to the post.

This is a preliminary program to allow for more finely tuned debates. If it is successful, we may choose to automate this process. If we do automate it we may have to limit flair choices.

Custom Flair

If you do not see the flair you would like to have listed in the stock flair options, you can request custom flair by messaging the mods, and it will be assigned to you. The following are the criteria for custom flair requests:

Limited to two classifications e.g. [Baptist, Ex-Catholic]

Must be relevant to religious discussion i.e. signify religious/spiritual belief or lack thereof.

You have two questions, which don't necessarily appear to be related. I'm just going to address your second one at this point.

If he loves us and wants to be with us why not just create us all existing in his presence?

But this is exactly what Christianity claims that God did. God created us and placed humanity in the Garden of Eden. We had direct access to him. We saw him face-to-face. However, in one of the great mysteries of the biblical message, humanity chose to rebel against God and we left him. We filed for divorce. The entire message of the Bible after the first 3 chapters is the story about God's rescue mission. Its the story about how God set about in making possible, and then actualizing, his plan to bring his children back into his presence.

The end of the story is heaven (or to be more precise, a new Earth). The Bible describes this as basically a reconstituted Garden of Eden. God will live with us on a New Earth, and there will be perfect joy. It will be the Garden of Eden once again.

The problem with this is that after we filed for divorce then god made women suffer pain in childbirth, threw us out of the house, brought death into the world, etc etc etc. It is like filing for divorce from your spouse, they launching an all out flame war on twitter, fb, etc. Burning down your house, selling all your belongings, demonizing you to family and friends, THEN asking for you to come back to them, and when you say no, saying YOU deserved it but they really really love you and really really wish you would not MAKE them send you to hell.

The problem with this is that after we filed for divorce then god made women suffer pain in childbirth,

But this is simply a false caricature of the Christian view. The Bible teaches that sin has grave consequences. Sometimes the gravest of consequences. When humans freely introduced sin into the world, they brought about many of the changes that occurred as a result. God did not throw some kind of cosmic temper tantrum and lash out at humanity in vengeful spite, as you seem to suggest.

And one act of disobedience by two people does not cause death of all living things to start. One act of disobedience did not force god to open a 24/7 infinite torture factory. Christians speak of sin like it is some kind of tangible physical force that can affect the real world, prove it. It is not like humanity cause gravity or electromagnetism to come into the world. Many Christians, admittedly mostly the YEC crowd, like to spout crazy stuff like all animals were vegetarians until the Fall. So how come vegetarian animals in a world of peace had all those sharp pointy teeth and claws? Or did the fall make all the fossils also change and grow those things, oh wait before the Fall there were no fossils since nothing died according to those same people.

God did not throw some kind of cosmic temper tantrum and lash out at humanity in vengeful spite, as you seem to suggest.

And one act of disobedience by two people does not cause death of all living things to start.

It doesn't? Well of course if you don't believe in Christianity you won't believe it does. Those of us who do believe in Christianity do think that disobedience caused death. I'm not sure why you think that simply asserting your opinion on this matter should be taken as some sort of convincing argument that we would find compelling.

Flood much?

Same with this. Simply mentioning the flood, does not constitute any sort of rational argument that the God of the Bible engaged in some sort of cosmic temper tantrum. If this is the way you interpret the story of the Flood, then so be it. But you haven't given any sort of argument to convince me to find your opinion compelling. You're just asserting things.

It doesn't? Well of course if you don't believe in Christianity you won't believe it does. Those of us who do believe in Christianity do think that disobedience caused death.

The problem is you are proposing a substance or a force called sin that can affect the physical world. Where is any proof of the existence of such a force? The idea falls apart with any understanding of evolution. Death existed in the world before people. Parasites etc. Any living thing that ate killed planted, they ARE alive. So it is not asserting my opinion that there is no mystic force that causes death, it is all that we know of reality that says that. Provide proof of this force and I will believe in it.

Same with this. Simply mentioning the flood, does not constitute any sort of rational argument that the God of the Bible engaged in some sort of cosmic temper tantrum.

Well, in the story at the end god feels so bad about what he did he promises to never do it again. Even supposedly changes the nature of water particles so that they can suddenly produce a rainbow. That would indicate some level of knowledge that a flood was a wee bit of an overreaction. And how could you not call wiping all life of the face of the planet but one boatload not a temper tantrum? There would have been people living on the other side of the world who knew nothing of that religion killed too. And many newborn infants etc. Thankfully a global flood never happened so that is good. Again, no global flood is not an assertion it is backed up by 100% of the evidence.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Flood story. But I'd rather not get bogged down on minutia. I mainly want to respond to one of your comments and clarify something.

I will also say that I believe that Death was in the world before the Fall of Adam and Eve, as I am a theistic evolutionist. But for those of us who believe in God, it is no big stretch to believe that God could forestall death in certain humans (conditional immortality). If there is a God, and if this God created the universe, then there is no reason to think that God couldn't order the molecules in ways he saw fit to do.

But again, I don't want to get bogged down on these details unless you want to discuss them in depth. Here is the comment I want to respond to:

Where is any proof of the existence of such a force?..... Provide proof of this force and I will believe in it.

This is a very good question. Let me tell you how beliefs work for Christians in general. You are correct that many, if not most beliefs of Christianity do not really have any evidence for them aside from the fact that they are taught in the Bible. So when these topics come up in debate, non-Christians come to the conclusion that Christians either believe in these things because of circular fallacies (e.g. "I believe it because the Bible tells me to believe it), or we believe it on the basis of some "blind faith" (i.e. "Faith" becomes some sort of magical warrant to base certain beliefs on).

Neither of these are true. But I am sympathetic as to why you think they would be. In brief, here's how beliefs work for Christians. I'll use myself as an example just to make this easier.

Let's say there are 1000 Christian beliefs taught by the Bible (not a real figure). Then it would be the case that the vast majority of these, perhaps 980 of them, have no evidence for them. As such, just like you, I find no reason to believe in them. There's no evidence for them. I'm certainly not going to be believe in something simply because a holy book tells me they are the words of God. That is circular logic. However, of those 1000 teachings in the Bible, there are a handful of foundational beliefs which do have evidence for them. So out of the 1000 beliefs in the Bible, there are, let's say, 20 beliefs which I have been convinced are true, on the basis of certain philosophical and historical arguments. An example of this sort of belief would be the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Yes, I know that you probably do not find those arguments compelling. Let's leave that aside for a moment. I would just ask you to take me at my word that I personally find those arguments extremely compelling, even if you think I'm wrong to do so).

I call these types of beliefs "first-level" beliefs. I begin by having no reason to trust most of what is in the Bible, and yet I have been persuaded by evidence that certain first-level biblical teachings are true. So what happens next? Well, once I become convinced that these 20 first-level beliefs are in fact true, then I am led, by logical implication and inference to believe in the remaining 980 beliefs (second or third level beliefs). I had no reason to believe in those things before. But many of them are directly implied by the first level beliefs.

So as an atheist, you are always going to be frustrated debating Christians on this sub when the conversation moves to any one of those 980 beliefs. Why? Because from your perspective it seems like we have no reason to believe them. Are we being circular? Or are we irrationally relying on blind faith? Those seem like the only two options. But I'm trying to show you that there's actually a 3rd reason. We believe in them because certain first level beliefs cause us to believe in them. So the best advice I can give you for this sort of debate sub, is to find out whether the Christian beliefs a certain thing because s/he thinks there is evidence for it (like the resurrection of Jesus), or whether s/he believes it only because it is implied by a different belief further down the causal chain.

So back to our original discussion. I readily admit and concede to you that I cannot prove to you that there is this force called "sin" which has changed the physical world is such profound ways. I have no smoking-gun evidence. However, I have been persuaded that the Genesis portrayal of human origins is accurate because I have been persuaded that Jesus is who he said he was. And I believe his claims based on evidence that could be discussed.

So out of the 1000 beliefs in the Bible, there are, let's say, 20 beliefs which I have been convinced are true, on the basis of certain philosophical and historical arguments.

Ok let us say that. But of those how many are ONLY from the bible. How did those thing show some level of truth not available to all. You may say Thou shall not kill is a truth in the bible that you believe is proven true and good and shows that Judaism then Christianity is true. But that is a law or a rule in many cultures that never heard of the god of the bible. It is a truth not restricted to the bible, therefore it is not a truth that can be used to support the truth of the bible as a whole.

Well, once I become convinced that these 20 first-level beliefs are in fact true, then I am led, by logical implication and inference to believe in the remaining 980 beliefs (second or third level beliefs). I had no reason to believe in those things before. But many of them are directly implied by the first level beliefs.

Also fine, but one of these "truths" that people used to believe in was that the Earth was the center of creation and the sun moved around us. It was a very prevalent idea, the bible supports it, and casual observation can support it. But now we know it to be false, so that 1 of the 1000 truths in the bible is now known to be untrue. The people who believe in the bible do not say well that part is wrong...it is still in the bible but it becomes allegory or poetry. Same thing for a global flood, the vast majority of Christian concede it did not happen, was probably taken from an earlier work, or was a local flood. They still claim it is one of your "truth" in the bible since you can get something from it. The problem is too many people think "truth" is the same thing as fact. So many of those 1000 "truths" you believe in are not factual so when the ones for which there are no evidence, like sin, you claim are real you are stepping from "truth" into fact and have nothing to support your belief.

Plus I do find a problem with your logic if you say (and I know you picked numbers for roundness) there are 1000 truths and that because 20 are true you are lead to believe in the other 980.
You are saying that because something is 2% true the other 98% should be regarded as just as true. I am sure you could find the same 2% of claim in the texts of other holy books of religions other than yours to be 2% true...do you believe them?

Ok let us say that. But of those how many are ONLY from the bible. How did those thing show some level of truth not available to all.

I'm talking about beliefs that became convincing to me even before I believed the Bible to be anything more than a group of historical texts. So two examples would be belief in the existence of God (a God who has certain omni- attributes), and a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ in history.

You may say Thou shall not kill is a truth in the bible that you believe is proven true and good and shows that Judaism then Christianity is true.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Although I believe that murder is wrong, I do not use that as direct evidence that the Ten Commandments were written by God, if that is what you are suggesting.

Also fine, but one of these "truths" that people used to believe in was that the Earth was the center of creation and the sun moved around us.

This belief used to be held by everyone. Christians, people from other religions, as well as non-religious people and atheists. The people who wrote the Bible probably also believed this. But this would not have ever been an example of the "first-level" Christian beliefs that I'm talking about. It doesn't even appear that this was a uniquely "Christian" belief in the first place - it was believed by all universally.

The people who believe in the bible do not say well that part is wrong...it is still in the bible but it becomes allegory or poetry.

The Bible is full of different writings, of different genres, from different authors, who lived in different cultures at different historical times. As such, the Bible must be interpreted extremely carefully, according to its genre and context. The same is true of modern communication. I might appreciate a novel, a poem, a rock-n-roll song, and a documentary. But I have to interpret them very differently, because although each one might be expressing truth, they are doing this in their own way. Sometimes its difficult to know what the message is that the author is meant to convey. But that is what we must do. That's how communication works, and its sometimes messy. If you want to pursue this at all, I'm willing to go into specific biblical examples with you. Listen. I understand that from your perspective it often looks as if Christians are simply picking and choosing. In other words, it looks like that if we don't like the way something in the text sounds, then we just explain it away as allegory or metaphor or whatever. I sympathize with people who are skeptical about this. But it really doesn't work that way. There is a consistent and non-arbitrary art to how to interpret ancient texts (any ancient texts), and this includes the Bible). The same tools we use to interpret the Bible correctly are the same literary critical methods that scholars use to interpret the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

You are saying that because something is 2% true the other 98% should be regarded as just as true.

No, this isn't what I'm saying. I'll try to be clearer. I agree with you that this wouldn't be much of an argument. Let me give you an example. I have ZERO reason to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, because I have ZERO evidence to believe this strange-sounding claim. So why do I believe it? Well, I think I DO have reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe I have good and compelling historical arguments to make this judgment. Now if this is the case, then this belief leads to other beliefs. Since I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then it makes me believe that Jesus is who he said he was, etc. This leads back to the virgin birth. So while I readily admit to you that (on its own) I have zero reason for believing in the virgin birth, and I certainly wouldn't believe it simply because some "holy book" told me to, it just so happens that a belief that I do have evidence for leads me (in a causal chain) to certain other beliefs which are implied by it.

That is why your following quote is not representative of what I'm talking about. "I am sure you could find the same 2% of claim in the texts of other holy books of religions other than yours to be 2% true...do you believe them?" Even if there are things I believe in other holy books, those beliefs don't lead to the main beliefs of those religions. Its not simply an un-nuanced numbers game. Yes, I believe the Koran is true when it says murder is wrong. But there is nothing logically or organically linked between this truth and the truth that Mohammad received divine revelation from God. So even though I concede they got some things right, the 2% I agree with in the Koran doesn't lead me to believe in the rest of it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Although I believe that murder is wrong, I do not use that as direct evidence that the Ten Commandments were written by God, if that is what you are suggesting.

What I was saying is you cannot use that as a reason to say the bible is true. Sure that is true but it is not only from the bible. It is found many places other than the bible so it, in and of itself, has no bearing on whether the bible is true.

I have ZERO reason to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, because I have ZERO evidence to believe this strange-sounding claim. So why do I believe it? Well, I think I DO have reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is I think one of the biggest reasons AGAINST religion. If there were a god as you claim and that got was omni and that god wanted to bring people to it how could it do so badly? How could it use a method that is not supported by evidence when it KNOWS it created humans to be curious and that curiosity would let to evidence against it. Why would such a being rely on something as ill-defined across humanity as faith when fact or evidence is a much better way? Why would such a being have absolutely no qualms, if we are to believe the bible, from showing itself and being involved in obvious ways in the lives of people back then but will not do so today. Why is it that the followers of this being make many claims of such miracles but when they are investigated it is found to be nothing supernatural and have a normal explanation. The bible claims you cannot get to god but through Jesus, and that only those moved by the Holy Spirit will find their faith in god, yet by the existence of atheists and other religion this holy spirit does not seem to move very many people. You claim you find reason to believe in it, and if it makes you a better person then great. But there are plenty of reasons to NOT believe in it, which again, gives lie to whether an omni creator would choose such a poor way to do it.

The same tools we use to interpret the Bible correctly are the same literary critical methods that scholars use to interpret the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

The problem is that one of those texts is known by all to be a story or myth and the other is believed by many to be a true history (factual to some and allegorical to others) of the universe. Given the claim of a higher standard for one, should it not be held to a higher standard?

Its a good question. The answer is that we aren't meant to live in his non-physical world. We are physical beings. We have bodies. We are meant to live a bodily existence. The Bible describes God's ultimate goal to be him coming down to live with us on the New Earth, not us going up to some ethereal heaven somewhere to live an immaterial existence with him. It really is going to be heaven on Earth.

God values a physical existence for us, because he chose to create us with a material body. Materiality is good.

See, the point is not whether spiritual is better than physical, or vice versa. Both are good. The point is that heaven needs to reflect the way that we are created. So if God created humans like the angels (without bodies) then a spiritual heaven would be best for us. Since that would be most conducive to our nature. But since God created humans as bodily entities, then our destiny is to live on the New Earth, since that is most in tune with our natures.

The Bible simply insists that God is being consistent. A physical heaven is better for physical creatures. A spiritual heaven would be better for spiritual creatures.

(By the way, just as an aside, there was an early heretical movement in the church we call "gnosticism." Gnostics taught that materiality was bad, that the human soul was good, but the human body was bad. They thought that the Earth was bad, and that salvation was all about escaping the Earth to go to a purely spiritual heaven. They also taught that sex is bad since it is so physical. Over and against this heretical view the Christian Church said that the material world is good, our bodies are good, sex was created by God to be good and pleasurable, and that we will live with God on a New Earth, and not some nebulous heaven somewhere.)

Honestly, I have no idea. We know he didn't have to. Angels, for instance, are a type of creature with no material bodies. Perhaps God wanted to exercise a wide range of his creativity. The Bible shows God enjoying his creation, and enjoying the process of creating it. It would be like asking an artist why he paints more than one sort of picture. Or why does he paints and does sculpture. I don't know. But I'm glad he did.

Where did you get the idea that Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) thinks it has all the answers? We don't. There are tons and tons of things we don't have an answer for. The only things we think we know are the things God told us in the Bible. And I'll be the first to admit to you that he didn't tell us very much.

God, specifically, the "timeless" "transcendent" multi-omni perfect Yahweh that has no beginning and no ending and is the cognitive cause, and resultant effect, of all things created us and the physical universe because....

Boredom

and, apparently from Holy Scripture in all the Abrahamic Religions, a narcissistic need to be worshiped and acknowledged.

If he [Yahweh] loves us

The claims that Yahweh created humans because Yahweh loves us, and the implicit relationship that is the result of this claimed love...

[Eph 2:6-7 NIV] 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

In short, God created us exactly the way He did, as a demonstration, to us, to the angels, to any other casual observer, His incomparable grace, which He expressed to us in His kindness through Christ Jesus.

In other words, sometime in the far-flung future, someone might say, "Well, God, how do we know you are good? How do we know you are gracious?" And all God will have to do is point to me...a broken, fallen creature which He chose to express His kindness to, through His Son.

It's one thing to say you are a good, loving and kind person...but it's another thing to have a demonstration of it.

I'm not so sure though... Why would god create imperfect creatures and then punish them for being imperfect. That's like a pet store owner punishing the puppies for having wet noses!

The garden of Eden was clearly a trap. It was an inevitable matter of time before imperfect humans made an imperfect choice and damned us all. If it wasn't Eve, then it would have been Eve's children or their children.

I often wonder if the try meaning of human life is simply to be punching bags for god, to born so we can be punished for being born.

It makes me wonder why god wants people to be tortured? Perhaps it makes his nipples hard?

God the father is spirit, but God the son is flesh and blood; physical man. Physicality is part of who God is and surely he is with us always.

... behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

... Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.

... And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

Ok, but those are just some words. As they same in game of thrones: "Words are wind". I haven't seen God, all you have provided me with is some words that says he is with us. If I told you I am the richest man in the world, would you believe it? If he really is God, why doesn't he show himself

But more than that we can experience closeness with God on many other levels.

Are you familiar with the Theory of Knowledge or what it is often called is epistemology? It is a subject of study focused on what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Just as we can know something empirically we can know something else rationally, essentially, historically, ideally, constructively, existentially, etc. etc. Thank you Wikipedia

Basically, what I'm tying to say is that there are many ways we can know something and God shows himself to us in multiple ways.

We argue for the existence of things and continue to believe they exist, even though they are mathematically impossible. We default to the belief that ultimate cause is something physical, even though no physical entity, however sectioned, explains its own existence. We hunger for love and meaning, even though we believe they are constructs of the mind and of culture or conditioning. We believe that only the empirical world is true, yet we posit this belief in metaphysical terms. We believe that matter has produced mind but that the mind transcends matter. We believe that everything that comes into being must have a cause, yet we believe the universe is causeless. We assume intelligence behind intelligibility - except for the universe. We believe in humanity's ability to totally transcend the mind but are forced to concede that we are subject to an unbreakable determinism.We deny the absoluteness of good and evil, yet we fill our prisons with relativists who have believed this – often highly educated and successful citizens.

These questions can be asked infinitely. It is like a toddler asking why over and over again.

I can only tell you how the scripture addresses the issue which is that so men would seek him. We can't understand why God chose this way over another way. Here is another scripture to consider:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I don't mean to offend, but honest question. Have you ever considered that Christianity might not be right? As in it could have just been made up on the spot with no basis? I know you will ask me the same question, but I want to know you think. (Sorry to hijack post OP)

It seems to me that you are presupposing that I believe in Christianity without reason. If you think like this then I would ask you to reconsider why you think like this. No one believes in anything without reason.

The reasoning behind some peoples' beliefs may not be good, but I guarantee you they have a reason for believing the way they do.

And everyone believes their reasoning is the best way to reason until they learn better.

To answer your question; yes I have considered that i might not be right. I have been swayed by the evidence that Christianity is truth. Or to rephrase that, that Jesus is the truth.

Ok, let me get this straight. You believe in evidence backing up your decisions. So you go with the least logical option (A guy who controls everything whom we have never seen and also has a son with supernatural powers whom we have also never seen) over an option which, as far as I am aware, is supported by substantial scientific evidence? And this evidence is not just from one source, whereas all Christians can quote is the bible and some sources which were made >500 years ago? Really?

There are a lot of things we can only speculate. I'm a Christian so, of course, my answer to the question comes from scripture. It's fine to speculate, but there really is not an answer. At least not one that we are privy to.

These questions can be asked infinitely. It is like a toddler asking why over and over again.

No that is backwards.
The toddler gets a lesson from brainwashed dad and the doesn't ask why anymore like an adult should.
Telling your kids that god loves the little ones while hiding what the bible says.

That's a silly question but it is relevant. Christians believe that after Jesus arose from the dead he ascended to heaven. He physically went up from the Earth and is now physically alive somewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, I do not know the location.